I'm curious why the R1 would receive a "highly recommended" at 83% relative to budget DSLR's (even though it's not a DSLR) and the 350D gets the "editors pick" at 80%. As well, if the Sony is being rated against DSLRs, should the lack of a movie mode be consider a drawback? Keep those reviews coming, the site is a pleasure to visit. Thanks

The Editor's Choice award is only given out to winners of group tests; runners-up in group tests can win Highly Recommended or Recommended awards.

The highest award for stand-alone reviews, such as of the Sony R1 and Nikon D200, is the Highly Recommended award; similarly, a product which doesn't do quite as well can win a Recommended award.

The 350D was reviewed at the same time as the Nikon D50, Pentax istDL and KM 5D as part of a group test at the time of launching the site. The 350D scored highest out of these four models and hence won our Editor's Choice award.

Products reviewed afterwards, such as the Sony R1, may score of course higher, but like magazines and other websites, we wouldn't then withdraw or downgrade the award of an earlier product.

We decided to score the R1 against budget DSLRs in the final verdict because its image quality and price are closer to DSLRs than existing all-in-one bridge cameras like the Fujifilm S9500.

Since the R1 is an all-in-one camera though, we also compared it against the top-end Fuji and Panasonic models in the results page and also commented on the differences in focal lengths in the main feature. This is why we also felt the R1's lack of movie mode was a downside worth mentioning.

I hope that explains our position and approach,

Thanks again for visiting the site and I'm glad you're finding the reviews useful!

What a great site, with illuminating, edifying and relevant lens reviews as well.
I have read somewhere that the R1's images should be put through Photoshop unsharp mask to really get full advantage of resolution available.
What are the chances of the R1 being improved, now that Sony are in the SLR business?
And what are the chances of Sony's, unbeatable, hologram infared autofocus resurfacing in the next model R1?
I was curious to know if the R1's Carl Zeiss lens is made in Germany or somewhere cheaper?

Thanks,
and congradulations on being the first to fully review the EOS 400D

I was personally very impressed by the R1, particularly its lens, which thanks to the short distance between its final element and the actual sensor plane, delivered very good results in many of our tests.

You can judge the sharpness for yourself from the Gallery pages and the 100% crops - I think they look fine, but some people prefer to add more sharpness. It's entirely personal, but I certainly wouldn't describe them as soft or lacking.

As for a successor to the R1, we can only speculate. You're right that Sony is very much committed to the SLR busienss, but only time will tell if they abandon form factors like the R1. I personally hope not because they're very interesting products with several benefits over DSLRs such as well-implemented live screens, no dust issues, well-corrected optics and the potential for movie recording. I'm afraid I don't know where the R1's optics were actually manufactured though...

Personally, I've been shooting in RAW with sharpness set to minimum in camera. I find the results after sharpening in photoshop to be better than those obtained with in camera sharpening but the R1's sharpening is by no means bad.

Well, I finally committed to an DSC-R1 purchase myself. Unfortunately, I may have been a little too cute in my decision to purchase a second-hand example, for what I thought was the bargain price of AUD $685.00.
It is missing a few items that came standard with the 'new' retail kit.
I discovered my USB cable from my Ricoh R4 (what do you think of this camera Gordon?) works fine, but critically, I'm missing the original CDROM and its crucial 'image data conversion software.' So my email is: isoebadio@optusnet.com.au if any one would like to send me this particular software component?
I noticed that there are a few possible fake Sandisk Extreme III compact flash cards on eBay. They look identical to the original Sandisk card, but if you look closely, it is missing the 'Sandisk' brand mark and are less than half the price of the said original.
One thing that my camera came with was a UV filter, that is useful for protecting the lens, but of what use is it otherwise on the R1's lens with its 'T' coating?

A further update on the fake Sandisk Extreme III CF cards on eBay. It seems it is far more sophisticated that I first thought.
The following URL, http://reviews.ebay.com/FAKE-SanDisk-Ex ... 0001456539, goes into detail on how to spot the fakes.
There must be many unsuspecting digi cam owners with these substandard cards and are unaware.
Perhaps eBay is not the best place to buy flash cards?
Powerinnumbers.com.au for example, seem to have some quick CF cards for prices that rival anything I have seen on eBay. Anyway, the're local and have a physical shop that I can commute too if I have problems.
I have not had any luck finding the Sony Image Data Converter program, so far. But I'm not too fused, yet. I'll shoot JPEG for now, while I get to know the ins and outs of the R1's operations - sharpening set to low and then post sharpened in photoshop.
As far as I am concerned, I paid AUD $685 for a high-end, pro-spec, Carl-Zeiss lens and the rest of the camera body was just a bonus.

Tried Image Data Converter SR the other day. Sending to Photoshop seems straight forward enough - a temp file is created, I believe - but saving a JPEG image requires going back to Image SR, as Photoshop only gives you the option for saving into a 'PSD' or 'tiff' file. I haven't tried the Neat Image plug in (have not needed noise reduction yet, as I haven't ventured past iso 400) up 'till now, but the image saved could be JPEG also.
I realise the R1 saves a JPEG image at the same time as the RAW file but the whole point of RAW was to be able to make changes to White balance, contrast, sharpness etc. . . without degrading the orginal image I thought. But saving a JPEG straight from the camera to Photoshop PSD file would be nearly as good? Is RAW really worth the effort in 99% of amatuer applications? Perhaps when wishing to avoid in camera noise reduction altogether, for example, but the R1 is not so bad in this regard.
It will be interesting to see what price the 16-80mm Carl Zeiss lens (I assume will be largely identical in design as the R1's) for Sony DSLRs retails for, as it will a true indicator of the value of the R1. My prediction would be around AUD $1,000.

Hi Seemoss, it certainly will be interesting to see the price of the upcoming Carl Zeiss Sony zoom for the Alpha fit, but remember it's a completely different optic. I believe the rearmost elements of the R1's optics are very close to the sensor, whereas on the Alpha fit they will have to clear the SLR reflex mirror.

As for RAW images, you know Adobe Camera RAW can convert the R1's files, right?

And yes, sadly I've heard several stories about fake Sandisk cards on eBay, so I'd avoid buying from there unless you can verify it's the real thing.

Thank you Gordon but I am still running version 7 of Photoshop.
After all my earlier musings, I will probably go with the Memory Stick option rather than upgrade my CF card! I understand the Sony Memory Stick to be a bit quicker on the R1. Although it still obviously not the camera to take to the car races.

Anyone tried the freeware plug-in 'JPEG 2000' from www.fnordware.com?
Files are smaller than normal JPEG, yet of higher quality, due to a compression technique that takes into account the visual range of colors. There appears to be an option of non-lossy saves too. Wow, having your cake and eating it too!?
I predict that although the DSC-R1 may have come to the end of its poduction, its CMOS sensor, or a from of it, will probably live on in Sony's next digital SLR.
It will be 1.5x crop factor size CMOS sensor, so the resolution will probably go up to 12 megapixels; and will probably be metal bodied as well.
I read somewhere that the next generation Canon digicams will all have OLED screens, so Sony better get a handle on this technology too.

Well, my prediction of the rebirth of the R1's sensor in Sony's 2nd SLR model hasn't happened . . . yet.
I have found a review of SAL 16-80 mm F3.5-4.5 Carl Zeiss at: htt://www.photozone.de/8reviews/lenses/ ... /index.htm.
'High' Lens distortion at 16mm of 3.2% and problems with vignetting as well.
How does this lens compare with Zeiss lens on the R1?

Yes, I very much looking forward to that lens test Gordon.
And it would be interesting to see how the new Tamron 18-250mm super zoom performs too.
Perhaps manufacturers should think about getting rid of vewfinder mirror boxes altogether on SLRs. This will probably have to await the arrival of OLED screen technology with its super fast refresh rates and reduced power consumption - no backlighting required.
This would also allow movie modes.
Plaudits for the being the first to review the E-510 and a fault free E-410 models.
Australian PC User Magazine recently evaluated a E-410 and commented on darkened, underexposed images. I'm guessing Olympus supplied them a dud 'pre-production' example too. They also mentioned the E-410 seems to have a weak, built in flash.
Something that my R1 does not. But, if I had the money I'd still buy an E-510 and live with this minor fault along with smaller viewfinder and the lightly less dynamic range. The feature set is simply too strong.
And there is no guarantee that it going to be matched any time soon, i.e. the live preview available on the EOS 1D MKIII, I understand, is inferior to that of the Olympus; and, five years later, no other manufacturers have been able to match the supersonic wave filter technology.